Transcript Comparative Study of the Impacts of Fisheries Partnership

Presentation to Norad and other stakeholders, Oslo, Norway
February 6th 2009
EVALUATION OF
NORWEGIAN
DEVELOPMENT
CO-OPERATION
IN THE
FISHERIES
SECTOR
Colin Barnes, Suzannah Walmsley, Francisco Leotte (MRAG)
Sveinung Fjose and Audun Gleinsvik (Econ Poyry)
John Linton and Ulrich Kleih (NRI)
Introduction

The study team was composed of Colin Barnes,
Suzannah Walmsley and Francisco Leotte
(MRAG), John Linton and Uli Kleih (NRI) and
Sveinung Fjose and Audun Gleinsvik (ECONPOYRY).
 The work was carried out over the period April December 2008, including consultation visits,
data collection and analysis with NORAD and
field visits to Mozambique, Nicaragua and
Vietnam
Methodology






Initial consultation with Norad staff in the Evaluation and
Fisheries Departments
Review of Norad and Norfund files in Oslo Norway (archive
analysis)
Detailed analysis of the rationale and impacts of private sector
projects
Review of project literature including mid term evaluations for
Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua and Vietnam
Contacts with other stakeholders – World Bank, IMR Bergen
Detailed case study analysis:



Mozambique
Nicaragua
Vietnam
Methodology

The case study countries were chosen according
the following criteria:




The size and continuity of programmes and
projects financed by Norway
The geographical spread of programmes and
projects
Coverage of different aspects of fisheries
management and development
A range of programmes and projects in relation to
the size of funding allocated
Financial and economic
parameters

Norway has been successful in reaching the target of aid
being 1% of GDP
 Total aid has increased from NOK 5 billion (1984) to
NOK 20 billion in 2007, including bilateral, multi bilateral
and multilateral support.
 The key priority is poverty alleviation.
 Support to agriculture and fisheries declined in the 1980s
and has remained stable since then.
 Over the period 1985-2006, aid to fisheries
approximated NOK 2 billion
 As a proportion of total support to the fisheries sector
represents a minor proportion on Norwegian aid
Total to
support
to the
fisehries sector,sector
excluding category
3.9, 1985-2006 (NOK ’000)
Total support
the
fisheries
1985–2006
(NOK '000)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
NOK '000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1985-1989
Africa
Source: Norad records
1990-1994
Asia
1995-1999
Latin America & Oceania
Europe
2000-2006
Norwegianassistance
development assistance
fisheries sector,
Development
to the tofisheries
sector by
by recipient country (NOK '000)
recipient country, 1999–2006 (NOK ’000)
Namibia (260,000)
18%
Other (300,000)
20%
South Africa
(35,000)
2%
China (40,000)
3%
Mozambique
(220,000)
15%
Philippines
(40,000)
3%
India (45,000)
3%
Maldives (70,000)
5%
Viet Nam (80,000)
5%
Sri Lanka (85,000)
6%
Source: Norad records
Nicaragua
(180,000)
12%
Tanzania
(120,000)
8%
The Case Studies
Vietnam
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Mozambique
Mozambique

Fisheries represent
4% of GDP and 28%
of foreign exchange
earnings
 Industrial and semiindustrial shrimp
fisheries and artisanal
fisheries
 Important during civil
war
History of Cooperation

Cooperation began in 1977
 NOK 240 Million ($ 37 million) over 1985-2008
 Norway a key long-term partner in fisheries
Impacts – Relevance



Relevant to
Mozambique’s priorities
but rationalisation post1996 reduced the
poverty focus
Support has been
flexible and responsive
— within areas defined
by Norway
Most impacts at central
level
Impacts – Efficiency &
Effectiveness




NOK 10 million per year
over the period
Efficiency satisfactory
Long term technical
assistance, equipment
and training account for
66% of expenditure
Effective – increased
capacity for fisheries
research, administration
and management
Impacts – Institutional strengthening




Fundamental to
strengthening sector
institutions
Long-term view,
investment in training
(individual development),
gender issues
Institutional twinning
LTTA and training
contributed more to
institutional development
than twinning
Impacts – Sustainability

Contributed to
promoting biological
sustainability
 Technical
sustainability good
 Financial
sustainability not
ensured
Vietnam
Background



NOK 80.2 million over 20
years, 80% of this
between ’95 and present
Most support through
Bilateral projects (85%),
some support through
NUFU(14%), very little to
private sector
Three major bilateral
programmes: Support to
Fish Law, Support to
RIA1, Support to NTFU.
All three under
implementation at time of
review
Background

The bilateral programmes focus on capacity
strengthening through TA, training and exposure
 In all cases the beneficiary expressed satisfaction with
the process, in one case delight.
 In the mean time, the Vietnamese fisheries sector has
grown exponentially in volume and value, mostly from
growth in the aquaculture sector
 Norwegian support has certainly not hindered, and in
several demonstrable cases, helped in this.
 For the Vietnamese fisheries sector, Norway is donor of
choice.
Identification and preparation
 Demand-driven
process which is
hard to fault.
 Considerable
investment (in
time) – the building
blocks of the long
term partnership
Implementation
of the beneficiary – to be
absorbed within their recurrent function –
NO PMU!!!
 Technical partnerships with the North build
on relationships built up during
identification and preparation
 Technical assistance mostly limited to a
programme of short term inputs
 Training and exposure highly appreciated.
 Responsibility
Impacts – Relevance



In some cases, high
impact, clearly measurable.
Demand-driven
identification & participative
planning tends to select for
relevance
However, for the
beneficiary, relevance to
their objectives is more
important than relevance to
Norwegian objectives.
Mostly there seemed to be
no conflict.
Impacts - Efficiency

Norwegian practice of embedding the project
within the recurrent function puts pressure on
administration
 But it does mean that sustainability is enhanced
 Efficiency of implementation was enhanced by a
three way partnership that looked to solve
problems – The Beneficiary, The Technical
partner and the Embassy
Observations and comments






In one of the programmes, Norway was the donor of
choice – in two, the programmes built on previous
relationships.
Very committed beneficiaries, operating to high personal
performance standards improved the chance of success.
In-spite of received wisdom, absence of open
competitive tendering probably improved efficiency and
value for money.
Capacity building for research – Great when it comes to
the technology of research, less great when it comes to
thte business of research – an important aspect in light
of directive 112!
Ability to work in English is a rate-limiting step
The Norwegian programme in Vietnam succeeded in
part because of the individuals involved. But it has
always been thus.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua – programs evaluated
Programs
Period
Programme size
Short description
Program to
increase
processing
capacity
19871992
103 million NOK
Civil war and the hurricane Huan
severely reduced Nicaragua’s catch
and processing capacity. Up on a
request form the new Government,
Norway supported the programs to
increase catching and processing
capacity.
Regional program
on stock
assessment
19871995
Not possible to
Regional program to Central
determine exactly what America to increase capacity on
has been channelled
stock assessment.
to Nicaragua under the
program
Institutional
support to National
Fishery Institute
(INPESCA)
20052009
USD 1,3 million
Institutional support to strengthen
capacity at the National Fishery
Institute (INPESCA)
Impacts – Relevance

Ongoing program



Relevant to development goals of Nicaragua and
is clearly anchored in the PRSP.
Relevant to Norwegian policy on gender,
sustainable development and indigenous people.
However, emphasis on gender and indigenous
people in the program is questionable.
Support to increase catching and production
capacity

Support given upon a request from the
Government of Nicaragua.
Impacts – Efficiency

Ongoing program




Cost effectiveness low, since few concrete results have
been achieved despite spending close to 30 percent of the
budget.
The support is coherent with other Norwegian support to
Nicaragua. However, we question whether purchasing
routines are coherent with Norwegian support on good
governance.
Additionality is considered good. Norwegian support has
been important in building capacity in national fishery
management (This is however a result of previous support)
Support to increase catching and production
capacity

Not possible to make robust assessments of whether
interventions could have been executed at a lower cost.
Impacts – Effectiveness



Seen in a long term perspective, Norwegian support
to the fishery sector in Nicaragua is considered
satisfactory.
Catching increased sharply in the period after
Norwegian support to increase production capacity
and it is reasonable to assume that increased
capacity at least in part can be attributed to the
Norwegian support.
Support provided to fishery research through the
previous regional programme contributed to
improving the quality of fishery research and
management. Today Nicaragua is considered to
have among the best fishery stock assessment
capabilities in Central America
Impacts – Sustainability

Financial sustainability


Good - some of the production facilities developed in
the programs to increase production capacity are still
in operation. Some of the vessels that where
rehabilitated are operational.
Financial sustainability in the ongoing program is
considered low. Norwegian support constitutes close
to 40 % of INPESCA’s total budget. If donor support
were to be withdrawn, research and fishery
management activities at INPESCA would be
reduced.
Impacts - Sustainability

Environmental sustainability



Concern about over-fishing, and catch statistics show
a drop in catches over the last eight years
The on-going program contributes to a more
sustainable management of marine recourses in
Nicaragua
It is not clear whether Norwegian support has
contributed to over-exploitation of fishery resources
as it is difficult to make a clear casual link between
the previous Norwegian support to increase
processing and catching capacity and the ongoing
over-exploitation
Impacts – Institutional
strengthening

Ongoing program



INPESCA is perceived to have very good research on
marine resources and their advice on quotas and overall
fishery management is respected by government
The high quality and capacity of fishery management is a
result of the high competence of several key people at
INPESCA. This can be explained partly by previous
Norwegian support for institutional development
Support to increase catching and production
capacity

This program was not aimed at strengthening institutional
capacity
Nicaragua – overall conclusion

Seen from a 20-year perspective, Norwegian support to the
fishery sector in Nicaragua is a moderate success. Nicaragua
is considered to have among the best fishery stock
assessment in Central America, and the quality of this can
partly be linked to Norwegian support.

Furthermore, assistance given to increase production capacity
can partly be linked to increased harvesting and processing in
the 1990s, which was a fundamental source of income to the
Nicaraguan economy after the civil war.

However, there are major implementation problems with the
ongoing support to the fishery sector in Nicaragua. It is crucial
that these problems are dealt with in order to increase
efficiency and effectiveness of the current programme.
Private Sector
Development
Norad’s support schemes



Pre-investment studies: This support scheme helps
Norwegian enterprises to carry out analyses on markets,
profitability, risk and possibly to help identify local
partners.
Training grants: Norad supports training for employees
in order to handle new technology, meet requirements of
markets and international treaties for trade.
CSR, environment and HIV/AIDS: Norad can support
efforts to increase standards (e.g. to meet important
requirements regarding sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
and technical barriers to trade (TBT)) and to stop the
spread of HIV/AIDS.
Norfund support



Through offering investment capital, loans and
guarantees, Norfund contributes to the development
of profitable and sustainable business activities in
developing countries.
Norfund may invest directly in individual businesses
or in funds or other financial institutions participating
in the financing of businesses.
Contrary to many similar institutions in other
countries, Norfund’s investments do not have to
have a Norwegian partner or other Norwegian
‘interest’. Norfund can invest in all low and middle
income countries.
Example results
Results from pre-investment studies. Norad
Category
Preinvestment
studies
Total number
of projects
Total
disbursements
(NOK ’000)
Number of
establish
ments
Jobs created
41
11,300
15
535
Results from training support. Norad
Category
Training
support
Total number
of projects
Total
disbursements
(NOK ’000)
Number of
projects still
operational
Jobs secured
12
6,600
8
1,350
Norfund results



Norfund has made five fishery-related investments, for
which the returns on investment have been substantially
negative (Figure 19), with a total loss close to NOK 60
million.
Due to poor financial results, lack of new interesting
projects in fisheries, and as part of a strategy for
geographical concentration, Norfund has reduced their
involvement in fisheries.
Out of the five original companies, they have only
maintained their investment in Nicafish.
Relevance



Private sector development is clearly anchored in
Norwegian policy, and Norfund and Norad are the
main channels for private sector development
support.
Private sector development and foreign direct
investment are important aims for most developing
countries, often emphasised in their development
plans.
A number of studies, summed up in the OECD
report ‘Review of the role of Foreign Direct
Investment in Development’ (OECD, 2002), indicate
that private sector development is a useful tool to
foster economic growth, which in turn can have a
positive effect on poverty reduction.
Efficiency and effectiveness
 Norad


support
37.5% of projects established as business
projects. According to interviews this is above
the expectations of Norad’s staff on private
sector development and better than the
average success rate for greenfield
investment in developing countries.
With regards to job-creation, over 500 jobs
can be linked to the pre-investment studies
Efficiency and effectiveness

Norfund’s investments




Norfund has incurred losses on all its five investments
except Nicafish. However, all companies are still
operating. Even though Norfund lost on their
investments, the investments are not failures when
judged by the main objective for Norfund’s operations.
Using the other Nordic funds as benchmarks, the
results of Norfund’s fishing sector investments have
been unsatisfactory.
Effectiveness, measured in development effect, has
been satisfactory.
However, due to the large financial losses, we believe
the development effect could have been better if the
money was invested in other projects
Additionality






Investments and pre-investment studies in the private sector
in most cases probably would have taken place without Norad
and Norfund support.
Additionality related to directing investments towards
potentially more risky developing countries where impacts on
poverty can be higher.
However, the support from the institutions is considered
valuable to the companies interviewed for a number of
reasons:
Having a link to an OECD country government is considered
beneficial when establishing in a developing country;
Helping explore potential investments in countries where they
would not otherwise have invested
Attracting other investors and reducing risk.
Sustainability

Financial sustainability



Environmental sustainability


Financial sustainability in Norad supported projects varies quite
a lot. While some enterprises have good return on investment,
others have already or will soon have to close down
Norfund’s return on investments in fisheries is substantially
negative. However, financial results in companies improved
after Norfund sold it shares.
Off all the projects evaluated only one is considered to have
operations that possibly could be harmful to the environment
Labour right issues

No enterprises interviewed, either in Norfund’s or Norad’s
portfolio, reported that they are violating rules and regulations
with regard to labour rights. Self-reporting is not a good tool for
uncovering violations, but the field visits also did not uncover any
labour rights violations.
Policy Development

The effectiveness of programmes and projects is varied
 Lack of indicators to assess impacts on fisheries management
and poverty alleviation
 Norwegian support to the fisheries sector has contributed to
policy development in the fisheries sector of partner countries
including capacity building in:
 Fisheries administration
 Research and training institutions
 The development of appropriate legal frameworks
 It is important that at the design stage that programmes and
projects contribute to policy development in (a) the partner
country (b) are compatible with Norwegian policy initiatives
for socio-economic development and fisheries and also that a
contribution is made to policy improvement at national,
regional and local levels
Training, education & research
Norway has provided support in three main areas:




Training and education of fisheries sector personnel
(Mozambique, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Namibia and
Tanzania)
Developing capacity for fisheries research in a
number of developing countries e.g. Mozambique,
Namibia, Vietnam
Development of fisheries training institutions
(Namibia, Tanzania)
Positive impacts at the institutional level although not
necessarily oriented to poverty alleviation
Impacts
 Relevance
has been satisfactory
 Efficiency difficult to evaluate but use of
local training, education and research is
increasing
 Effectiveness – long term commitment has
been effective in developing human
resources capacity
 Important for institutional strengthening
 Sustainability good as people tend to
remain within the sector
Comments




Norwegian support has strengthened institutional
capacity e.g. IIP in Mozambique and INPESCA in
Nicaragua
Lower institutional support of fisheries sector training
institutions – an exception is Vietnam
While specialist training may not be available in
partner countries, short courses and in service
training may meet this need.
Increase the use of in-country and regional training
institutions for undergraduate and post graduate
education.
Conclusions



Norwegian aid to the fisheries sector has generally
been positive and is considered by many to be one
of the better aid programmes to the fisheries sector.
It is difficult to attribute a causal relationship
between Norwegian aid and poverty alleviation –
there are many other factors which come into play
e.g. government policy for poverty alleviation and
targeting of low income groups.
While aid has apparently had positive impacts in two
of the case study countries (Mozambique and
Vietnam) there may be other issues that have not
been sufficiently addressed.
Conclusions – Relevance

Norwegian support to fisheries has generally
been relevant to the priorities of Norway and the
partner country.
 Some projects are more focused on where there
is Norwegian expertise and not on poverty
alleviation.
 Transfer of responsibility to MFA may mean that
projects are driven by diplomatic/political
concerns rather than developing country needs
and poverty reduction
 The transfer of responsibility to MFA has not
affected day to day operations which are
handled by embassy staff in the partner country
Conclusions - Efficiency

Efficiency varies as between programmes,
projects and countries
 Lack of open tendering may raise the issue of
whether the best institution was involved in
programme/project management and technical
support
 The lack of adequate management and financial
information systems at Norad and at embassy
level which constrains their use in project
assessment, monitoring and evaluation
Conclusions - Effectiveness
 Norwegian
aid has been effective at
achieving its objectives
 Project effectiveness has varied
between countries
 Impacts on poverty reduction have
been indirect
 The main impacts have been at
national level
Conclusions – Institutional
strengthening
 Norwegian
aid has strengthened
institutional capacity and capability,
notably in:

The development of fisheries policy and law,
fisheries research and management in partner
countries
Conclusions - Sustainability




Financial sustainability in the private sector has
been good
In the public sector, financial sustainability has
depended on a number of factors, included matched
funding by the partner country (budget constraints)
Take up and sustainability of legal training has been
good
The development of sustainable fisheries however
depends on other factors including fisheries
management plans, stock assessment and the
control of IUU fishing
Conclusions - Additionality

To what extent would the impact of Norwegian
aid taken place without such aid? This is difficult
to assess although there is evidence that where
Norway has been a significant donor in the
fisheries sector, this has been important
 In the private sector, additionality has been
greater where there have been risky investment
climates (risk sharing and information on
potential), where impacts on poverty can be
greater, than in safer investment climates
Recommendations




There is a need for better organisation of management
and financial information systems on projects in general
and the fisheries sector in particular
There needs to be consideration of how poverty
alleviation which is one of the main aims of Norwegian
aid is better integrated in programme and project design
Human resources dedicated to the fisheries sector are
relatively low and could be strengthened in Norad
Programme and project indicators at output, outcome
and impact levels need to be better defined in the
development of ex ante and ex post indicators for
programmes and projects including project specific
indicators.
Recommendations




Need to define strategic priorities in the fisheries sector
relating to Norwegian expertise and extend to poverty
reduction
Programme and project indicators at output, outcome
and impact levels need to be better defined in the
development of ex ante and ex post indicators for
programmes and projects including project specific
indicators.
Use of such indicators would contribute to better
programme and project monitoring and evaluation
Use of such indicators would contribute to better
programme and project monitoring and evaluation
Recommendations

Given the overall positive impacts on Norwegian
aid to the fisheries sector, we recommend that
Norwegian support to the sector should continue
including:



Norad and Norfund programmes
Institutional collaboration with research institutes and
universities in developing countries
There should be a focus on developing local capacity
rather than using HEIs in Europe, this could include
country specific and regional institutions
 Future
cooperation should focus on results
and implementation of policy
Recommendations



A competitive open tendering process could be used
for the provision of technical expertise – a broader
sourcing of expertise Norwegian and international
including expertise in the partner country.
The poverty reduction strategy of the country should
be assessed to establish whether Norwegian aid to
the fisheries sector will have effective impacts on
poverty reduction
Projects should be demand driven although there
should be an assessment of the commitment of the
partner country to poverty reduction and the degree
to which Norwegian cooperation can influence that
agenda.
The team would like to thank the extensive support and collaboration which
they received throughout the duration of the evaluation from Norad, Norfund,
IMR, Norwegian embassies and stakeholders in the 3 case study countries and
the comments of stakeholders on the report.
Tusen takk/Thank you
Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd
18 Queen Street
London
W1J 5PN
Econ Poyry
Postboks 5
0051 Oslo
Natural Resources Institute
University of Greenwich
Chatham Maritime, ME4 4TB, Kent, UK
Tel: 020 7255 7755
Fax: 020 7499 5388
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tel: 47 45 40 50 00
Fax: 47 22 42 00 40
Email:
[email protected]
Tel: 01634 – 883065
Fax: 01634 – 883706
E-mail: [email protected]